Appeal No. 1998-2226
Application No. 08/454,268
is met, the burden of going forward then shifts to the
applicant to overcome the prima facie case with argument
and/or evidence. Obviousness, is then determined on the basis
of the evidence as a whole and the relative persuasiveness of
the arguments. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24
USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992); In re Hedges, 783 F.2d
1038, 1039, 228 USPQ 685, 686 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re
Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1472, 223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir.
1984); and In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 1052, 189 USPQ 143,
147 (CCPA 1976).
Having reviewed the position of the Examiner, answer at
pages 5-10, and the position of Appellants, brief at pages 4-8
and reply brief, at pages 1-5, we conclude that the Examiner
has not met his burden of making a prima facie case in
rejecting these claims. Szczepanek does not even disclose the
concept embodied by the claimed "means for connecting any
first port to any second port; and control means for
controlling operation of the data alignment device such that
in any transfer step, data having a length corresponding to an
integer multiple of the said shortest length of data can be
transferred between the memory and the second ports of the
55
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007